The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia: Second Edition

Part I: The Popular Tradition

1 PART 1 THE POPULAR TRADITION All too often a textbook picture of Theravada Buddhism bears little resemblance to the actual practice of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. The lived traditions of Myanmar,1 Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka seem to distort and sometimes subvert the cardinal teachings of nibbana, the Four Noble Truths, or the Noble Eightfold Path familiar to the Western student of Buddhism.2 The observer enters a Theravada Buddhist culture to discover that ordination into the monastic order (sangha) may be motivated more by cultural convention or a young man’s sense of social obligation to his parents rather than the pursuit of transforming wisdom; that the peace and quiet sought by a meditating monk may be overwhelmed by the amplified rock music of a temple festival; that somewhat unkempt village temples outnumber tidy, well-organized monasteries; and that the Buddha, austerely imaged in the posture of meditation (samadhi) or dispelling Mara’s powerful army (maravijaya) is venerated more in the hope of gaining privilege and prestige, material gain, and protection on journeys than in the hope of nibbana. The apparent contradiction between the highest ideals and goals of Theravada Buddhism and the actual lived tradition in Southeast Asia has long perplexed Western scholars. In his study of Indian religions, Max Weber made a sharp distinction between what he characterized as the “otherworldly mystical” aim of early Indian Buddhism and the world-affirming, practical goals of popular, institutional Buddhism that flourished in the third century C.E. under King Asoka and later Buddhist monarchs.3 Even recent scholars of Theravada Buddhism have been influenced by Weber’s distinction in their studies of Buddhism as a cultural institution and an ethical system.4 2 part 1 To be sure, the Theravada Buddhism of Southeast Asia, not unlike other great historic religions, defines ideal goals of moral perfection and ultimate self-transformation and the means to attain them, but at the same time, Southeast Asian Buddhism also provides the means by which people cope with day-to-day problems of life as well as a rationale to justify worldly pursuits. Both goals are sanctioned in the writings of the Pali canon, the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism.5 The way to the transcendence of suffering called the Noble Eightfold Path presented in the first public teaching attributed to the Buddha in the discourse known as “Turning the Wheel of the Law” (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta), includes advice appropriate to monks, such as meditation, but also the laity, such as right ethical action. The goals of Buddhism are, in short, both nibbanic and proximate—a better rebirth, an improved social and economic status in this life, and so on; the two are necessarily intertwined. We find in the Pali canon justification for both spiritual poverty and material wealth. Even as the monk or almsperson (bhikkhu/bhikkhuni) is enjoined to eschew worldly goods and gain, it is wealth that promotes both individual and social well-being when generously distributed by laypeople unattached to their possessions.6 Any broad, holistic analysis of Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia should take into account not only its highest ideals and varied practices, but also its seeming contradictions. For example, rituals designed specifically for the benefit of the soul of the deceased seem to undermine the central Theravada doctrine of anatta or not-self/not-soul. The student of Theravada Buddhism should keep in mind, however, that the not-self doctrine can be interpreted as sanctioning such monastic pursuits as meditation, whereas the doctrines of kamma (Sanskrit, karma) rebirth (samsara), and merit (puñña) justify a wide range of other moral and ritual acts.7 These are distinctive but related domains within the broader context of the Theravada tradition; they should not be seen as contradictory. In the Pali texts, both ultimate and proximate ideals are promoted. The tradition affirms that the Buddhist path is many forked and, furthermore, that people are at different stages along the path. Explanations that seek somewhat arbitrarily and rigidly to differentiate teaching and practice, the ideal and the actual, run the risk of the popular tradition: inclusive syncretism 3 sacrificing the interwoven threads of religion as they are culturally embodied to the logic of consistency. With this admonition in mind, I use the term, “popular tradition,” with some hesitancy; no value judgment is intended. “Popular” in this context does not mean less serious, less worthy, or further removed from the...